Essay_Growth and Enviroment_Group3

8/7/2019 Essay_Growth and Enviroment_Group3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/essaygrowth-and-enviromentgroup3 1/18

Growth vs. Environment

An ethical Perspective

Submitted By: Group 3

Ashutosh Chaudhary 10P193

Akashdeep Singh 10P185

Anant Garg 10P187

Harpreet Singh 10P200

Kalika Jain 10P203

Kamal Pandey 10P204





Growth Vs. Environment An Ethical Perspective

3

Contents

Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4

Ethical Frameworks : How Sufficient Are They? ................................ ................................ .................. 5

Environmental Ethics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 6

Theories of Environmental Ethics ................................ ................................ ................................ ...6

Libertarian extension ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7

Ecologic extension ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7

Conservation ethics................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7

What is growth doing to our environment !................................ ................................ ....................... 7

Global Warming................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 8

Eff ects of Global Warming................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8

Tragedy of Commons: Root cause of Environmental Degradation................................ ...................... 9

Ethical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 10

Averting the tragedy ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10

Stakeholders in Growth ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11

Developing vs Developed: The Eternal Question ................................ ................................ .............. 12

Who pays for the growth? ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13

Who pays for environmental conservation? ................................ ................................ ................. 13

What next? ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14

Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis ................................ ................................ .................... 15

Environmental engineering................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16

Transf er Mechanism of Utility ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16

Conclusion................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16

Bibliography ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17




4

Introduction

It is commonly agreed that we need economic growth to ensure the well-being of ever-increasing

population and also to further improve standards of living. Economic growth is seen as the way to lift

people in developing countries out of poverty and to fight disease, illiteracy and crime. But what are

the eff ects of economic growth on the environment?

There are many decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. For example:

y Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?

y Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles?

y What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations?

y Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the convenience of

humanity?

Human-induced climate change is the most troubling and complex environmental problem facing

the world as a whole. The Earth's climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, and its future

implications are wide-ranging. Climate change is expected to have considerable impacts on natural

resource systems, and thereby changes in the environment can aff ect human livelihood and even

survival.

Among all this what we often ignore is the disturbing fact that those who cause this environmental

damage and those who pay for it are not always the same set of people. For example, it is the big

industries which cause the air pollution giving rise adverse climatic changes which in turn results in

poor crop cycles. The industries causing pollution make a segment of society i.e. owners, workers,

consumers etc. wealthier but at whose costs - at the costs of the poor farmers who are more

vulnerable to the climate change with little or no shield against it. Another example which we all see

very frequently is the diseases caused by the gases produced by vehicles. These harmful vapors not

only pollute the air in which the owners of the vehicle breathe but also the air in which otherinnocent bystanders breathe.

Is it ethical that someone pays the cost of growth of someone else? Or is it ethical to deprive a

society, an nation of growth to preserve environment? Can growth only be achieved at the cost of




5

the environment or is there an alternative to it? What is an ethical choice growth or environment?

Should we save environment because it is necessary for our survival or we should do it as a duty?

In this essay, we have tried to answer the questions about the issues that have posed danger to the

very existence of mankind. Here we have ma jorly addressed two ethical issues-

Responsibility towards our environment, our ecosystem.

Responsibility towards f ellow human beings who are not causing environmental degradation

but are getting aff ected by it.

Ethical Frameworks : How Suff icient Are They?

Environmental degradation due to human activities can be attributed to two main human attitudes.

One is anthropocentrism (i.e., human-centeredness) which is embedded in traditional western

thinking. Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the

central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an

exclusively human perspective. It gives human beings moral right to command anything present in,

above and on the earth and beyond for their use and benefit. Anthropocentrism forms the basis on

which western political, economical and even ethical thought has developed. White (1967) while

discussing the historical roots of the environmental degradation argues that the main strands of

Judeo-Christian thinking had encouraged the overexploitation of nature by maintaining the

superiority of humans over all other forms of lif e on earth, and by depicting all of nature as created

for the use of humans. Consequently, they may utilize and consume everything else to their

advantage without any in justice. For example, Genesis 1:27-8 states:

God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and

female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,

and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over fish of

the sea, and over fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the

earth.

The main consequence of anthropocentricism of traditional system is that, it makes it difficult to

apply traditional ethical system and theories in Growth vs. Environment debate. Traditional ethical

theories only provide guidance in human-to-human interactions and moral dilemmas. Interactions




6

with land, plants and animals being outside the purview of traditional ethics could not be sub jected

to the scrutiny of various ethical frameworks. According to the anthropocentrism, only humans have

intrinsic value that should be preserved as such. Everything else is instrumental in maximizing the

utility for humans and hence only possesses instrumental value. Instrumental value and intrinsic

values were first discussed by Plato in the "Republic". An instrumental value is worth having as a

means towards getting something else that is good (e.g., a radio is instrumentally good in order to

hear music). An intrinsically valuable thing is worth having for itself , not as a means to something

else. Traditional ethical theories like value ethics could not be applied as such to environmental

issues as such because nothing in environment except human beings have instrumental value.

Theories like utilitarianism could be of use with some limitations and that too in a case when

instrumental values are attributed to these non-human ob jects. For example, when we talk about

persevering tiger population for our future generations, it is not because we believe that tigers have

some value just by virtue of existence (intrinsic value, Value ethics) but because tigers have

instrumental values (aesthetic value, maintaining ecological balance etc.).

Environmental Ethics

Insufficiency of traditional ethics has resulted in emergence of new and broad base ethical theories

such as Environmental ethics. It is an emerging philosophy in ethics that tries to tackle the

anthropocentricity of traditional ethics. It does so by including the non-humans (which include

everything in environment except human beings) into the framework of traditional ethical theories. It assigns intrinsic value to everything and hence theories like value ethics and utilitarianism became

applicable to them. Now an environmental ethical judgment could be based on utilitarianism if it

maximizes utility for ma jority of constituents of environment that include humans, plants, animals

and nature as a whole. Therefore, if a business pro jects maximizes utility for human beings but

destroys the ecosystem than it is unethical from utilitarian perspective as total utility will be

negative.

Theories of Environmental Ethics

Alan Marshall is a scholar who has tried to categorize the various ways the natural environment can

be valued. He describes three general approaches towards Environmental Ethics:




7

Libertarian extension

Marshalls Libertarian extension follows a civil liberty approach i.e. a commitment to extend equal

rights to all members of a community. According to this approach all entities animate and in-

animate, can be given ethical worth purely on the basis that they exist.

Ecologic extension

Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on human rights but on the

recognition of the fundamental interdependence of all biological (and some non biological) entities

and their essential diversity. Ecologic Extension is can be viewed as a scientific reflection of the

natural world.

Conservation ethics

Marshall's category of 'conservation focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of its

utility or usefulness to humans. It has its basis on the argument that the environment should be

preserved because of it has extrinsic value that is it is instrumental to the welfare of human beings.

Conservation of environment is therefore a means to an end and this category is purely concerned

with mankind and its considerations.

As we can observe from the above mentioned theories of Environmental ethics, the rationale behind

the preservation of environment may find its basis in diff erent arguments; nonetheless

environmental ethics do require that humankind should preserve the environment. Thoughenvironmental ethics brings business decisions that aff ect the environment under the ambit of

ethics but it needs a significant change in the attitude of people to be eff ective. When completely

egalitarian society is yet far-f etched dream among humans, assigning equal intrinsic value as humans

to everything in nature is utopian dream.

What is growth doing t o our environment !

Let us examine what exactly is the tradeoff between growth and development. One impact of

growth, the impact that endangers the very existence of lif e on Earth, is Global Warming. It is

imperative to discuss global warming before we set on to settle the debate between growth and

environment




8

Global Warming

The term "global warming" ref ers to the warming of the Earth in recent decades and its pro jected

continuation, implying a human influence. The eff ects of global warming on the environment and

human lif e are numerous, varied, accelerating. It has been caused by increasing concentrations of

greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and

deforestation.

Eff ects of Global Warming

Human race has witnessing some of the extreme and adverse eff ects of global warming in recent

years. These eff ects are -

Extreme weather conditions such as droughts, tropical cyclones, tsunami etc.

Local climate changes disturbing the ecological balance of the region.

Harmful diseases such as skin cancer, dengue f ever, Lyme disease etc.

Melting of polar ice caps resulting in rise of sea level.

It aff ects agriculture and food production around the world due to the eff ects of elevated

CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, altered precipitation etc.

Beyond direct effects: The ethical perspective

The above-mentioned eff ects are only a f ew of the harmful eff ects of global warming. There is a

larger picture that needs to be looked at.

Th¢ ris ¢ in th¢ s¢ £ l ¢

¤

¢ l due to global warming would cause many cities like New York,

Miami, Tokyo, Mumbai, Venice, and Shanghai to go underwater. What would happen to the people

living there? Most of them had no involvement in or did not even from the phenomena which

caused this global warming. Will there displacement be justifiable?

Great migrations will disrupt the city and lif e as people relocating from coastal areas will

have to move more inland. The local roads and bridges will be overloaded from the strain. What

would be the ethical stand - to not allow the migrants, who due to no fault of their own had to leave

their homelands, to enter the inlands; Or to let the inhabitants if the inlands suff er the excess

burden on infrastructure, jobs, resources etc. due to this migration.

The oceans f ragile ecosystem will be disrupted as coral reef s, an integral part of the ocean,

bleach and die from the increase in water temperatures. The Polar Bear is completely dependent of




9

on a sea of ice for survival. However, the shrinkage of 15 to 20% of sea-ice in the Arctic is slowly

killing its prey, causing the species to die of starvation. These poor creatures had absolutely nothing

to do or benefit from the activities causing global warming, then is it ethical to have them suff er due

to the human greed.

It is high time that the mankind should look at the environment and its abundant resources more

than mere means of the economic and financial profits, but appreciate it's intactness as a necessity

to his existence. He should learn to consider and acknowledge the right of other living beings on the

environment as well and give them their due share in the environmental resources.

Now even as we agree that growth causes environmental degradation, it is still not clear why

growth, unlike many other human actions, is self-regulated. Why humans, being a rational entity

they are, not able to gauge the impact of their actions on the environment and regulate themselves.

Next section answers this question.

Tragedy of Commons: Root cause of Environmental

Degradation

Another human attitude that is responsible for the degradation of environment is the behavior

towards the commonly owned utilities. When a person harnesses the common facilities e.g.

common grasslands, water bodies, air, public facilities etc. the benefit is en joyed by that single

person or entity but the cost is borne by community as a whole. In eff ect, the person en joys full

benefit from the transaction but pays only a fraction of the cost (total cost/total persons in the

community). This is a great bargain for the person and prompts it to use more and more of the

resource that finally leads to the overutilization of the resource. Hardin (1968) put forth this idea in

its seminal paper titled Tragedy of Commons. Hardin gives an example of herders sharing a

common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example,

it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if

the quality of the common is temporarily or permanently damaged for all as a result, through over

grazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the

common is shared by the entire group. In Hardins words:

T herein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase

his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which




10

all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of

the commons. Hardin (1968 )

To explain the dynamics between the growth and environment we can replace common grazing field

in Hardins parable with the common pool of air, water and ecosystems available for humanity. In

fact, Earth as a whole can be seen as commons available for the utilization by humanity. Cattle

grazers in the example are the corporations and other economic agents that utilize the resources

available to maximize their benefit. There is an incentive to grow for them, as the corporations

receive all the benefit from each additional factory, while the damage to the environment is shared

by the entire group. This seems to be beneficial in short term for the corporations but it is

unsustainable in the long term for everyone including the corporations.

Ethical Analysis

Tragedy of Commons renders itself to the scrutiny from the perspective of various traditional ethical

theories as here we are dealing with the instrumental value of the nature and natural resources. In

this case actions of the economic agents are unethical as in the long run they diminish the utility of

the commons for the people. Act utilitarianism looks to single actions and bases the moral judgment

on the amount of pain amount of pleasure this single action causes. If we apply act utilitarianism to

this case, than growth seems to be ethical as setting up of more and more factories will lead to

better employment opportunities and consequently better income levels and standard of living.

However, the unrestricted growth is unsustainable and will lead to destruction of the natural

resources. Though the economic agents have right to use the resources, resulting final outcome

renders their actions unethical under rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism looks at a class of action

and asks whether the underlying principles of the action produce more pleasure than pain for

society in the long learn.

Averting the tragedy

From ethical point of view, tragedy of commons could be averted if the economic agents are far-

sighted and nobel enough to care for the common long term good. In the classic example of

herders, it means herders will voluntarily limit the number of cattle in their herds and hence avoid

overgrazing. However, from economic viewpoint there are two main hurdles in this approach. First

the herders are acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest and long term

eff ect are not quite evident. Secondly, and this is the ma jor roadblock, even when it is clear that it is

not in anyone's long-term interest and the commons ground could be permanently damaged, there




11

is little incentive for a single herder to abstain from the increasing the herd. Because if he does so,

then he will forego the benefit of adding another cattle to its herd but still incur the cost of

additional cattle added by another herders. Therefore as the game theory suggest, rational decision

for the herder is to keep adding cattle to his herd. This approach of abstinence could be successful

only when all the herders using the commons decide collectively not to overgraze the commons

which is a utopian scenario. In practice, tragedy of commons could be averted by making

arrangements that reduces the undue advantage gained by those exploiting the common

environment. Usual practice is to impose some charges or penalties to those which utilize the

common facilities. For example, polluting industries may be required to additional taxes or may be

fined. This will increase the cost of exploiting the common resources which is air or water in this

case. If properly implemented, such measures will make cost of adding of a new polluting factory

deterring and growth will be restricted to sustainable level.

Nevertheless, before implementing any solution to the problem, it is prudent to identif ywho are the

various stakeholders in this debate of Growth of organization. This is critical because any solutions

will demand acceptance from the stakeholders and their participation in implementation.

Stakeholders in Growth




12

When an economy grows there are several stakeholders in it, of which environment is a very

important stakeholder. All the living beings are a part of the environmental ecosystem and

continually engaged in a highly interrelated set of relationships with every other element

constituting the environment in which they exist. Thus anything which happens to this environment

also has direct or indirect eff ect on other components of the environmental ecosystem, of which

human beings are a part. Another important stakeholder is the community that have to choose

between environment and growth. However, the choice of diff erent communities to this option is

far from unanimous. While economically progressive communities and nations have environment as

one of their main priorities, less developed communities and nations believe that growth is

indispensable for them and their people. We examine this dichotomy from ethical perspective in the

next section.

Developing vs Developed: The Eternal Question

This question becomes relevant especially in case of developing countries, who desperately need

growth to ensure a minimum level of sustenance to their growing population. Without economic

growth there is no way out for their folks to escape from poverty, disease and low standards of

leaving. Developing countries need industrial growth even to provide basic amenities to their

population. Addressing environmental concerns could prevent them from attaining their industrial

potential. Even imposing checks and balances on industries, suggested as a solution of commons

problem earlier, could render their industry uncompetitive when compared to other countries. Andin this era of globalization it invariably means killing the industry altogether. Underdeveloped

countries can also not adopt clean technologies as it required huge capital investment which is

beyond the capabilities of these countries. This is main bone of contention during the global level

talks on climate and environment. We will elaborate on this further when we discuss Kyoto protocol.

Utilitarian framework can give some direction in solving this dilemma of choosing between the

options of perpetual hunger, poverty, disease or breaking the cycle by accelarated growth, though

endangering the environment. China has choosen the later route and has managed to achieve high

level of growths. However, it has come after considerable impact on environment, as evident fromthe first position China occupies among the biggest carbon dioxide emitting countries. Nevertheless,

China has been able to lift millions out of poverty as a consequence of high growth.




13

Who pays for the growth?

Another related ethical question is who pays the cost of growth and who reaps the benefit. This

question is, in a way, a logical extension of the tragedy of commons. The subtle diff erence is that in

commons problem the economic agents who initially exploit the commons and reap benefit and

those who eventually suff er because of their indiscretion and short sightedness are same. However

in this question the stakeholders are diff erent. This question involves moral dilemma of rights and

duties and equity and justice. For example, although China has managed to improve its economic

situation but it has pushed many smaller islands nations in to the brink of extinction. Global warming

resulting from the activities of China and other carbon emitting nations has resulted in rising sea

levels which have endangered low lying countries like Maldives etc. All of this points to the classical

loophole in the utilitarian theory, where the interests of the minority often get subdued towards the

greater good. Even when we can justif y the actions of China and other carbon emitting nations on

the basis of maximum good and their right to grow and lift their people out of poverty; these

countries cannot be absolved of their duty towards the endangered countries. Another question

here is of equity and justice. Benefits of industrialization are reaped by the countries that are

growing. They increase there per capita income and standards of living of their people. However the

cost of this is borne by low lying nations which is grossly un justified and hence unethical.

Who pays for environmental conservation?

There is also a question other way round i.e. who pays the cost of sustaining environment (in terms

of foregone benefits of growth) and who en joys the benefits of healthy environment. While there is

general agreement on that there should be done something to save the environment and mitigate

the impact of economic growth on environment, who will pick the tab is not clear. This is primary

because the distribution of the cost of sustaining environment and benefits is inherently not

equitable. If we take example of India, there are states like Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand and NE

States which have highest forest cover but low GDPs. They have the option to set up factories,

industrial units and even to utilize the forest cover for trade in timber etc. This will increase their

revenues and hence raise income levels if the population. However, if they do so it will severely

impact the environment and overall forest cover in India will go below 33% which minimum level

neccessary for environmental sustenance. At the same time, these states have to bear the cost of

maintaining this forest cover in terms of low GDP and growth. This is a moral dilemma in the sense

that, while the benefits of green cover are en joyed by everyone only these states have to pay the

cost of lost opportunity to grow. At the global level same question arises and is much more complex




14

and difficult to answer. This question is put forth by fast growing and polluting countries to provide

some ethical ground for their actions. Oechsli and Katz (2010), in their analyses of the strategies of

Amazon rainforest conservation from ethical perspective highlight the limitation of analyzing the

environmental concerns from narrowly defined anthropocentric and instrumental goods. They argue

that it is difficult to assign utility to outcomes of environmental preservation vis-à-vis outcomes of

growth. They try to solve this dilemma by using biocentrism (i.e., nonanthropocentrism). They

suggest that assigning intrinsic value to the environment constituents justifies the obligation of every

country including developing countries towards the environment on the basis of deontological or

kantian ethics. Nevertheless, they accept that there is criticism of the focus of western

environmentalists on biocentricism. According to Ramachandra Guha these Western concerns are at

best, irrelevant to, and at worst, destructive of Third World societies. Guha (1989) argues that

T he history and politics of power relations cannot be ignored. T hird World nations,

recently freed from political colonization, see the development of indigenous natural

resources as a means of attaining economic freedom. T he newly formed policies of non

development and preservation appear to be a subtle form of the old imperialism. T he

wealthy industrialized nations of the world, having developed their own natural

resources, and having stolen the natural resources of the T hird World, now are

planning to prevent any further development, so that the ecological basis of humanity

can be preserveda policy which clearly limits the economic and social development of

the poorer, non-industrialized nations.

According to Guha, any justifiable environmental movement must include solutions to problems of

equity, economic and political redistribution.

What next?

So where is the debate heading? Do we always have to choose between growth and environment?

Can't the two be complementary? Yes, they can be. In todays scenario, both growth and

environment concerns are important. Growth can be achieved without harming the environment. The economic, technological and social growth, if utilized efficiently and eff ectively can provide new

and innovative tools and technologies to further enhance our environment. There have been

developments, which can make environment and growth go hand in hand. Next we discuss some of

these developments.




15

Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis

Kuznets was a USA economist of Russian extraction. In 1955 he advanced thehypothesis, in the early

stages of economic growth (with average income rising from a low level) environmental degradation

increases, but at some stage in economic growth (at some income level) pollution ceases to increase

and then it subsequently decreases.

The hypothesis states there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between some indicators of

environmental damage and economic growth. So during economic growth, environmentaldegradation will initially increase, but eventually decrease. The hypothesis implies that rising income

itself is the primary cause of decreasing environmental quality at low incomes and improving

environmental quality at higher incomes

What could be the mechanism or mechanisms by which the relationship between environmental

degradation and income is produced? There are several explanations to this, f ew of which are-

As people become wealthier, they have more time to think about other things than mere

survival, time to think about environmental conditions, and, being wealthier, they have more clout to influence local and national governments to take action to improve the

environment. This leads to environmental legislation being enacted and new institutions

designed to protect the environment.

Another causal factor is the phenomenon of structural change in economies. As an economy

develops there is a subsequent movement from an energy intensive industrial economy




16

towards a less energy intensive service based economy which leads to a reduction in

environmental degradation.

Also, as a country becomes wealthier, it can afford to spend more on research and

development, which leads to the development of improved technologies and thus

subsequent reduced environmental impact.

Environmental engineering

En¥

ironmental engineering is the application of science and engineering principles to improve the

environment (air, water, and/or land resources), to provide healthy water, air, and land for human

habitation and for other organisms, and to remediate polluted sites.

Environmental engineering involves waste water management and air pollution control, recycling,

waste disposal, radiation protection, industrial hygiene, environmental sustainability, and public

health issues. It also includes studies on the environmental impact of proposed construction

pro jects.

Transf er Mechanism of Utility

As elaborated before, most important reason because of which efforts of environment conservation

has met with stiff resistance is that the cost and benefits of these efforts are not distributed

equitably. Mechanism such as Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) has been developed where

advanced countries will provide clean technology to poor countries at subsidized rates. Such

mechanism will mature with time and hence quicken the pace of clean development while

addressing the questions of equity and justice.

ConclusionWhile new evolving ethical theories provide interesting frameworks for resolving dilemmas

concerning environment and growth, their acceptability still remains a distant dream. These

concepts may gain a currency in developed countries but developing countries, which are at the

center of debate, will remain wary of this Environmental imperialism. As discussed towards the

end emergence of new pollution mitigating and cost eff ective technologies and business models

could end the trade-off between environment and growth and humanity can grow while sustaining

environment.




17

Bibliography

Guha, R. (1989). Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World

Critique. Environmental Ethics , 75-76.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy Of Commons. Science, Vol162., No.3859 , 1243-1248.

Oechsli L. & Katz, E. (2010). Retrieved Feb 3, 2011, from

http://www.umweltethik.at/download.php?id=392

White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crises. Science,55 , 1203-1207.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_ethics

http://www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/economyk.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_engineering

http://www.condorcet.com.au/en/article/1721.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eff ects _of_global_warming

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004218/OilEff ects.htm




18

Documents

Essay_Growth and Enviroment_Group3